Wickersham v. Lynch Motor Company of Auburn, Inc. (CONSENT), 3:11-cv-00280

Wickersham sues Lynch Motor Company of Auburn over an automobile sale, financing, and repossession.
Defendant removed the case to federal court based on federal questions in Counts 5–8.
Defendant moves to compel arbitration and stay; plaintiff did not respond.
The parties consented to magistrate judge proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
On August 10, 2010, plaintiff bought a vehicle with alleged AmeriCredit financing; the sale documents allegedly contained arbitration provisions; repossession occurred on September 23, 2010.
Plaintiff contends financing was approved at the time of purchase and seeks relief through court, while defendant asserts arbitration is mandatory under signed agreements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an arbitration agreement exists and covers the dispute.	Wickersham argues no enforceable arbitration binding.	Lynch asserts there is a valid arbitration agreement signed by plaintiff.	Arbitration agreement exists and covers the dispute.
Whether FAA governs and requires arbitration of the claims.	FAA permits judicial review free of arbitration where Congress intended to preclude arbitration.	FAA governs and enforces arbitration agreements for commerce.	FAA governs the arbitration obligation.
Whether all claims fall within the arbitration scope.	All claims arise from the vehicle transaction and financing.	Claims relate to contract, financing, and repossession within arbitration scope.	All claims are within the arbitration agreement.
Whether the proper remedy is dismissal or stay.	If arbitrable, court should stay pending arbitration.	Dismissal appropriate when all claims are arbitrable.	Dismissal without prejudice, not a stay.
Whether the dismissal should be with or without prejudice.	Not addressed directly; dismissal without prejudice acceptable.	Court may dismiss without prejudice if not all defendants seek dismissal.	Dismissal without prejudice.

Chastain v. Robinson-Humphrey Co., 957 F.2d 851 (11th Cir. 1992) (first task is to determine whether parties agreed to arbitrate)
Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (U.S. 1985) (arbitration judged under FAA; interpretation governed by contract law principles)
First Options of Chicago v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (U.S. 1995) (state-law contract formation principles govern arbitrability studies)
Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (U.S. 1991) (statutory claims may be subject to arbitration under FAA; burden on party to show preclusion)
Alford v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 975 F.2d 1161 (5th Cir. 1992) (all issues arbitrable; dismissal with prejudice not required when all claims arbitable)
Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc., 539 U.S. 52 (U.S. 2003) (“involving commerce” reaches the FAA’s reach)